Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability Empirical Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume: 3 | Issue: 2 | Jan-Feb 2019 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 - 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Reference Paper ID - IJTSRD20309 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 2 | Jan-Feb 2019 Page: 275
Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability: Empirical
Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka
S. Anandasayanan1, H. Thavarasasingam2
1Senior Lecturer, 2Student
Department of Financial Management, University of Jaffna, Jaffna, Sri Lanka
ABSTRACT
Corporate governance is concerned with ways in which all parties interested in the well- being of the organization attempt to
ensure that mangers and other insiders take measures or adopt mechanisms that safeguard the interests of the stakeholders..
The purpose of the study is to find out the impact of corporate governance on profitability of listed Land and Property
companies in Sri Lanka. Return of Assets is used as dependent variable. To measure the corporate governance, Board size,
Board composition and independent directors of Remuneration committee. number of auditors are considered in this study.
Firm size was considered as control variable in this study. The data were collected from firms’ annual financial reports and
Data Stream over the period of 2011to 2016, from the CSE website. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, multiple linear
regression analysis were used to analyse the data and examine the hypotheses by using the E-views 10 version, in this study.
The findings revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between ROA with auditors, board composition.
Independent directors of Remuneration committee and boardsizeareinsignificantlycorrelated withROA.Furthermore,itwas
found that the control variable (firm size) was insignificant in influencing firm performance (ROA)..Thisstudyprovidesuseful
information for policy makers, regulators in improving the corporate governance policies in the future and also helps in
increasing and understanding the relationship between corporate governance and firm’s performance.
KEYWORDS: Corporate Governance, board size, Firm performance, Return on Assets, Listed Land and Property Companies
INTRODUCTION
“Corporate governance” first cameinto voguein the1970sin
the United States. Within 25 yearscorporategovernancehad
become the subject of debate worldwide by academics,
regulators, executives and investors (Cheffins, 2012).
Corporate governance is the means by which a company is
operated and controlled. The aim of corporate governance
initiatives is to ensure that companies are run well in the
interest of their shareholders and the wider community
(ACCA, 2016). Corporate governance generally refers to the
set of mechanisms that influence the decisions made by
managers when there is a separation of ownership and
control. The governance mechanisms of modern
corporations are of interest to investors, business
practitioners, regulators, and scholars. These mechanisms
can be broadly classified as internal and external. Internal
governance mechanisms in developed market economies
focus on the role and functions of ownership structure,
boards of directors, Chief Executive officer (CEO) duality,
individualand institutional shareholders, activist stock
ownership and directors and executive compensation.
External governance mechanisms concern the effectiveness
of the managerial labour market, the market for corporate
control, and government regulations. (Wu et al, 2002;Sahaet
al, 2018; David, 2005 ;).
The issue of corporate governance has become essential in
the present situation because of increasing fraudulent
activities, agency conflicts and insidertradingwhich weaken
the corporate performance (Enobakhare, 2010). Good
corporate governance practices are important in reducing
risk for investors; attracting investment capital and
improving the performance of companies
(Velnampy&Pratheepkanth, 2012).Brownand Caylor(2004)
found that better-governed firms are relatively more
profitable, more valuable, and pay out more cash to their
shareholders. Organized corporate governance helps to
economic stability by upgrading the performance of
organizations and expanding their right to gain entrance to
outside capital Shahzad et al (2015).Shleifer and Vishnvy
(1997) defined corporate governance as a way in which
suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of
getting a return on their investment. Irrespective of the
particular definition, the importance of corporate
governance arises in a firm because of the separation
between those who control and these who own the residual
claims (Epps and Cereola, 2008).
Brown andCaylor(2004) point out that, regulators and
governance advocates argue on the stock price collapse of
such former corporate stalwarts as Adelphia, Enron,
Parmalat, Tyco, and WorldCom was due in large parttopoor
governance. If their contentionsare valid,amarketpremium
should exist for relatively well-governed firms.
The study attempts to ascertain and establish whether there
are significant impacts of corporate governance on firm
performanceof Listed Land and Property companies in Sri
Lanka.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The impact of corporate governance on firm performance
has been a subject of great empirical investigations in
finance. Most empirical research has focused on the impact
of corporate governance on performance. Furthermore,
finance decisions are associated with the agency costs and
corporate governance mechanisms. In thepresentstudy, the
corporate governance and corporate profitabilityof theland
and property companies in Colombo stock exchange (CSE)
has been investigated. Several research were undertaken to
ascertain how corporate governance has an impact on

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
dividend decision, Capital structure and performance.
Several researches have expressed their findings as to how
corporate governance had an impact on corporate
performance, corporate profitability and firm’s value.
However such research are rarely carried out in Sri Lanka.
No such study has been conducted to investigate between
corporate governance and corporate profitability.Therefore
the research problem could be stated as follows. “To what
extent the corporate governance have significant impact on
firm performance”.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to find out the impact of
corporate governance on performance of Listed Land and
Property Companies in Colombo Stock Exchange.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is important for the investors to obtain
knowledge about mechanism of the corporate governance
adopted by their portfolio companies. Furthermore, it
provides the opportunities for academicsandresearchersto
study the evidence of whether or not the corporate
governance affects the performance of Listed Land and
Property Companies in Sri Lanka.
DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING
There are 19 companies that are listedonLand andProperty
sector on Colombo Stock Exchange.This wasincorporatedas
the Population for this study. Among them 17 firms were
used as the sample. The research is based on secondarydata
which gathered from firms’ annualfinancial reportsand data
stream over the period 2011to 2016, from the Colombo
Stock Exchange(CSE) website .Theanalysisisbasedonpanel
data, by using software package of E-views.
LITERATURE REVIEW
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
AND PROFITABILITY/PERFORMANCE
The concept of corporate governance has been viewed by
number of authors and scholars. For instance,David et al
(2012) investigated the influence of corporate governance
on financial firms' performance during the 2007-2008
financial crisis. In his study, theywereusingauniquedataset
of 296 financial firms from 30 countries that were at the
center of the crisis, they found that firms with more
independent boards and higher institutional ownership
experienced worse stock returns during the crisis period by
using regression model.
Sahaet al (2018) carried out study to explore the
relationship between corporate governance and firm
performance with considering the role of board and audit
committee using secondary data for the period of 5 years
ranging from 2013 to 2017. 81 listed companies in Dhaka
Stock Exchange(DSE)were used as sample and the multiple
liner regression analysis was used as underlying statistical
test. The results of the study signifythatboard independence
ratio and audit committee is statistically significant and has
positive impact on Return on Asset (ROA) and Tobin’s Q
(TQ). But it is not statisticallysignificant in the case of firm
performance indicator Return on Equity (ROE) in thisstudy.
In addition to this, board size is not statistically significant
and has negative correlation with firm performance due
togroup dynamics, communication gaps and indecisiveness
of larger groups.
According to Velnampy and Pratheepkanth (2013), there is
an impact of corporate governance on ROE and ROA. For
their study, they used board structure and corporate report
to measure the corporate governance whereas returns on
assets, return on equity and net profit were used to measure
the firm’s performance.The data of ten manufacturing
companies in Sri Lanka representing the period of 2006 to
2010 were used for the study. The multiple regression
analysis was applied to test the impact of corporate
governance on firm performance. Further their study found
a positive relationship between the variables of corporate
governance and firm’s performance.
In one study, Tomar&Bino(2012)expressed the relation
between corporate governance and bank performance by
using a sample of 14 banks listed on Amman Stock Exchange
market over the period 1997 to 2006, and their findings
revealed that ownership structure and board composition
have a strong impact on the bank performance and board
size has no effect on bank's performance.
Wu et al (2002) disclose that ownership concentration and
percentage of employees’ shareholding have positive
impacts on firm performance but the percentage of major
officers’ shareholding does not. The ratioof insiderdirectors
is not related to firm performance either. CEO duality has an
impact on chairmen’s salaries. However, managerial
compensation is, in general, not related tofirm performance.
Ibrahim et al (2010) stress that the impact of corporate
governance on firm performance. The ROA and ROE are
selected as firm’s performance variables for this study. The
data of corporate governance and the profitability variables
were collected from two manufacturing sectors (Chemical
and Pharmaceutical) of Pakistan from 2005 to 2009. The
findings of this context is that there is a significant impact of
corporate governance on ROE while insignificant on ROA. In
sector wise analysis, there is an insignificant impact on
pharmaceutical sector’s profitability and chemical sector
ROA. Whereas there is a significant impact of corporate
governance on chemical sector ROE.
Shahzad et al (2015), identify the relation among three
corporate governance instruments (Board Size, Board
Composition and CEO-Status) and one firm performance is
measured using ROA Karachi Stock Exchange listed cement
firms is observed for the period 2007–2013. Findings of the
study was that there is a positive and significantrelationship
between ROA with board size and negative significant
relationship between ROA with CEO-Status. Furthermore
insignificant relationship between ROA with board
composition by applying the ADFtest multiple regression
and T-test exploration.
Bhagat&Bolton(2008) make threeadditional contribution to
the literature, first one is that, stock ownership of board
members, and CEO-Chair separation is significantly
positively correlated with better contemporaneous and
subsequent operating performance. Second, none of the
governance measures are correlated with future stock
market performance. Third, given poor firm performance,
the probability of disciplinary management turnover is
positively correlated with stock ownership of board
members, and board independence.
Velnampy and Nimalathasan (2013) undertook a study to
find out the relationship between corporate governance

practices, capital structure and firm performance in listed
manufacturing firms in Sri Lanka with a sample of 25
manufacturing companies using the data representing the
periods of 2008 –2012. Leadership structure, board
committee, board meeting, board size, board composition,
were used as the determinants of corporate governance
practices whereas debt equity ratio (DER) was used as the
measure of capital structure and return on equity(ROE)and
return on assets (ROA) were used as the measures of firm
performance.
Johl et al (2015) undertook a study is to examine the impact
of board characteristics and firm performance. They tested
the effects of board meeting, board independence,board size
and directors accounting expertise on firm accounting
performance. This research used datafrom annualreportsof
the 700 public listed firms in Malaysia for the year 2009.
Based on their findings the result shows that board
independencedoesnotaffectfirmperformance, whilstboard
size and board accounting/financial expertise are positively
associated with firm performance. Board diligence in terms
of board meetings is found to have an adverse effect on firm
performance.
Zabri et al (2016) focus on corporate governance practices
among Top 100 public listed companies in Bursa Malaysia
and the relationship between corporate governance
practices with firm performance, showed thatboard size has
significantly weak negative relationship with ROA butitwas
found to be insignificant to ROE. The other finding indicated
that there was no relationship betweenboard independence
and firm performance.
Faizul and Thankom (2016)investigatetheinfluenceof firm-
level corporate governance on financial performance of the
listed firms in Bangladesh. Agency theory suggests that
better corporate governance reduces expropriation costs,
which, in turn, enhances investors’ confidence in the firm’s
future cash flow and growth prospects, leading to higher
firm valuation. Likewise, a decrease in private benefits is
likely to cause an improved operating performance. This
research uses a questionnaire survey-based corporate
governance index (CGI), comprising of the three dimensions
– shareholder rights, independence and responsibilities of
the board and management, and financial reporting and
disclosures. The study results partly confirm the prediction
of the agency theory, with a statistically significant positive
relationship between a firm’s corporate governance quality
and its valuation, even though the relationshipbetween firm
level corporate governance and operating performance
seems inconclusive.
Simon & Enoghayinagbon (2014) examine the relationship
between corporate governance and financialperformance of
randomly selected quoted firms in Nigeria. It investigates
corporate governance variables and analyses whether they
have an impact on firm performance as measured by return
on asset (ROA) and profit margin (PM). Four corporate
governance variables were selected namely: composition of
board member, board size, CEO status and ownership
concentration which served as the independent variables.
The ordinary least square regression was used to estimate
the relationship between corporate governance and firm
performance. Findings of the study show that there is a
positive and significant relationshipbetweencomposition of
board member and board size as independent variables and
firm performance. CEO status also has positive relationship
with firm performance but insignificant at P<0.05.However,
ownership concentration has negative relationships with
return on asset (ROA) but positive relationship with profit
margin (PM). The relationships arenotsignificantat5%. The
study recommends among other things that companies’
board should be majorly dominated by independent
directors and board size shouldbeinlinewith corporatesize
and activities.
Puwanenthiren et al., (2016) analyze the correlation
between Board attributes and company performance in a
sample of 100 Australian and 100 Sri Lankan firms. The
analyzed board attributes includesize;genderratio;fraction
of non-independent members; and experience. The level of
economic development considered to have a potential
confounding effect on the outcomes. The analysis of thedata
suggest that: boards in Australia are much larger than
boards in Sri Lanka; Boards are male dominated in both
nations; and while board structure provides predictive
insight into firm performance, only a few individual
attributes are significant. Important finding of this research
is that the larger boards of Australia have significantly
stronger influence on firm performance than relatively
smaller boards of Sri Lanka. Future research should extend
the review of the effects of board size on corporate
performance.
Zhaoyang & Udaya (2012)examinetherelationshipbetween
corporate governance structures and firm performance of
listed firms on Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) in Sri Lanka.
Data were collected from 174 firms in the financial year
2010 and multiple regression analysiswereusedtoexamine
whether the existing corporate governance mechanisms
influence the firm performance of listed firms in Sri Lanka.
The study found that, (i) board size and proportion of non-
executive directors in the board shows a marginal negative
relationship with firm value, (ii)proportion of non-executive
directors in a board and financial performanceoffirmshows
negative relation contrarytothefindingsofpreviousstudies.
The firm size and director shareholdings have a significant
impact on firm performance of listed firms in Sri Lanka.
Mwangi (2012) investigated the effects of corporate
governance on the financial performanceof listed companies
at (NSE). Specifically, this study examined board size, board
composition, CEO duality and leverage and how they affect
the financial performance of listed Companies at National
Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE). Firm performance
was measured using Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on
Equity (ROE). Data was analyzed using a multiple linear
regression model. The study found thatastrongrelationship
exist between the corporate governance practices under
study and the firms’ financial performance. There was a
positive relationship between board composition and firm
financial performance. However, the most critical aspect of
board composition was the experience, skills and expertise
of the board members as opposed to whether they were
executive or non-executive directors. Similarly,leverage was
found to positively affect financial performanceof insurance
firms listed at the NSE. On CEO duality, the study found that
separation of the role of CEO and chair positively influenced
the financial performance of listed firms

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK
The following conceptual model has been developed to show the relationship between corporate governance and firm
performance.
Source: Developed by Researcher
Conceptual model shows that corporate governance is independent variable corporate performance is dependent variable.
Definition of variables
The following table shows the corporate governance
variables and their description in this context.
Table 1: Variable definitions
Variables Description Measures
Dependent variable
Profitability
ROA
Return on
Asset
Net profit after tax and
provision divided by
the total asset at the
end of each year
Independent variables
AUD Auditors
Numbers of members
in audit committee.
BSIZ
Board size
Total number of
directors on the board
as at the end of each
year
BCOM Board
composition
Board independence
(including
independence of board
committees) of board
members
INDR
Independent
directors of
remuneration
committee
Number of
independent directors
in remuneration
committee
Control Variables
FSIZ
Firm size
The natural log of the
total assets.
HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
For the study, followinghypothesis wereformulatedinorder
to examine the relationship between the variables, based on
the theory, and previous studies outlined.
Hypothesis1: The corporategovernancesignificantlyimpact
on profitability and which measured by using ROA.
REGRESSION MODELS USED IN THIS STUDY
To investigate the impact of corporate governance on
profitability, the following regression model can be
developed based on the variables used in the study.
ROA = f (, AUD, BSIZ, BCOM, INDR,FSIZ) Equation 1
ROA = β0 + β1 AUD + β2 BSIZ+ β3 BCOM+ β4INDR +β5 FSIZ + Eit
model 1
ROA = Return on Assets.
AUD= Auditors
BSIZ= Board size
BCOM= Board composition
INDR= Independent directors of remuneration committee
FSIZ= Firm size
β0= Constant.
ε= Error term.
EMPIRICAL RESULTSOF THIS STUDY
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the variables used
in the analysis for this pooled sample. The pooled mean
(median) return on assets (ROA) is 5.050843 (5.55948)
respectively. The average auditor size is 3.07 (the median is
3). The average board size is 8.42 (the median is 8.5) also
board composition have an average of 2.52 (median 3) and
the independent directors of remuneration committee has
an average value of 2.51 and the median is 3. With respect to
the control variables included in this model, average size of
the sample firms measured by real sales is about 3.09E+09
(1.22E+09)LKR.
These summary statistics indicate that the sample used in
this study is comparable to those used in prior research in
the Context of Sri Lanka.
Table 2: Summary statistics
AUD BSIZ BCOM INDR FSIZ ROA
Mean 3.070000 8.420000 2.790000 2.510000 3.09E+09 5.050843
Median 3.000000 8.500000 3.000000 3.000000 1.22E+09 5.559480
Std. Dev. 0.945537 1.364633 1.148517 1.251222 6.14E+09 9.222536
Observations 100 100 100 100 99 100

Multicolinearity test
Multicolinearity can be measured using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) or Tolerance test. In this study, VIF was used.
Table 3: VIF Analysis
Variable Coefficient Variance Centered VIF
C 35.49627 NA
AUD 1.165599 1.667598
BSIZ 0.377288 1.123297
BCOM 0.970518 1.925390
INDR 0.928520 2.230802
FSIZ 2.55E-20 1.518853
According to the Table 2 VIF values are below 10 and where VIF values are less than 10 then there is no any issue on multi- co
linearity.
Correlation Analysis
To find out the relationship among variables, correlation analysis was carried out.Thesummaryof theresults arepresentedin
the Table 4.
Table 4: Correlation analysis
AUD BSIZ BCOM INDR FSIZ ROA
AUD 1.000000
BSIZ -0.023260 1.000000
BCOM 0.472772 0.250330 1.00000
INDR 0.560220 0.093775 0.648882 1.000000
FSIZ 0.482738 0.145132 0.370390 0.523851 1.000000
ROA 0.392940 0.114334 0.428548 0.352838 0.194669 1.000000
Table 4 reports the Pearson correlation coefficients between variables.Auditorssize(AUD),board composition(BCOM) shows
a positive and statistically significant correlation with firms’ performancemeasuredby both ROA.Thisresultisconsistentwith
the hypothesis. Turning to control variables, firm size (FSIZ) has an insignificant positive correlation with measures of
performance. Furthermore, table 4 suggests that the observed correlation coefficients between independent variables are
relatively low, multicollinearity is not a serious issue in this study.
Regression Analysis
Table 5: relationship between corporate governance and firm performance
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -12.09560 5.957875 -2.030188 0.0452
AUDITORS 2.463179 1.079629 2.281504 0.0248
BOARD_SIZE 0.359153 0.614238 0.584712 0.5602
COMPOSITION 2.193423 0.985148 2.226490 0.0284
REMU_COM_INDEPNT 0.397122 0.963598 0.412125 0.6812
FIRM_SIZE -1.08E-10 1.60E-10 -0.674041 0.5020
R-squared 0.236330 Mean dependent var 5.350145
Adjusted R-squared 0.195272 S.D. dependent var 8.767755
S.E. of regression 7.865257 Akaike info criterion 7.021479
Sum squared resid 5753.191 Schwarz criterion 7.178759
Log likelihood -341.5632 Hannan-Quinn criter. 7.085115
F-statistic 5.756062 Durbin-Watson stat 1.723731
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000113
The Table 5 shows the estimated result of model 01. R
square shows that the model explained 23.6330% of total
variations of the dependent variable. It means that
23.6330% of the changes in dependent variable are
described by both independent and control variables. As a
point of focus, the hypotheses of this study states that the
Audit committee sizesignificantly affects the Firm
performance of listed Land and Property Companies.
As observed, the results show that Auditors has a coefficient
of 2.463179 with t statistics of2.281504 with a p value
of0.0248. Thus, from the results, it can be stated thatthereis
a significant impact of Auditors on firm performance. Board
size has a coefficient of 0.359153with t statistics of
0.584712with a p value of 0.5602. Board composition has a
significant impact on firm performance while the coefficient
is 2.193423, with t statistics of 2.226490 and the p value of
0.0284.
Remuneration Independent and firm size does not
significantly impact on firm performance. Durbin Watson
test is a test used to defect auto correlation.Fromthe Table5
Durbin Watson stat value is1.723731. This value which is
less than 3 indicates that there are no auto correlation
issues.
CONCLUSION
This study examined the impact of corporate governance on
profitability of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri
Lanka. This study shows that the Auditors and Board

composition significantly impact on profitability.
Remuneration independent and firm size does not
significantly impact on profitability. R square showsthatthe
model explained 23.6330% of total variations of the
dependent variable. It means that 23.6330% of the changes
in dependent variable are described by both independent
and control variables. The research was carried out byusing
the data over the period 2011to 2016, and only the firms in
Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) operating in the Land and
Property sector were included. In future study different
sectors may be analysed. There is a scopeoffurther research
to examine the impact of corporate governancemechanisms
subject to diverse social and environmental agency issues
and their market valuations.
REFERENCES
[1] Bhagat, S. and Bolton, B., 2008. Corporate governance
and firm performance. Journal of corporate finance,
14(3), pp.257-273.
[2] Boyd, B.K., Haynes, K.T. and Zona, F., 2011. Dimensions
of CEO–board relations. Journal of Management
Studies, 48(8), pp.1892-1923.
[3] Brown, L.D., &Caylor, M. L. (2004). Corporate
governance and firm performance.
[4] Cheffins, B. R. (2012). The history of corporate
governance. The european corporate governance
institute. Corporate Governance and Financial
Performance: The Case of Australia and Sri Lanka.
[5] Global Review of Accounting and Finance Vol. 7. No. 1.
March 2016 Issue.
[6] Donaldson, L. and Davis, J.H., 1991. Stewardshiptheory
or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder
returns. Australian Journal of management, 16(1),
pp.49-64.
[7] Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., & Matos, P. (2012). Corporate
governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis:Evidence
from financial institutions worldwide. Journal of
Corporate Finance, 18(2), 389-411.
[8] Enobakhare, A., 2010. Corporate governance and bank
performance in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation,
Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).
[9] Epps, R.W. and Cereola, S.J., 2008. Do institutional
shareholder services (ISS) corporate governance
ratings reflect a company's operating performance?.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), pp.1135-
1148.
[10] FaizulHaque and Thankom G. Arun (2016). Corporate
governance and financial performance: an emerging
economy perspective. Investment Management and
Financial Innovations, 13(3-1).
[11] Ibrahim, Q., Rehman, R., &Raoof, A. (2010). Role of
corporate governance in firm performance: A
comparative study between chemical and
pharmaceutical sectors of Pakistan. International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 50(5), 7-
16.
[12] Jensen, M. C., &Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the
firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership
structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-
360.
[13] Johl, S. K., Kaur, S., & Cooper, B. J. (2015). Board
characteristics and firm performance: Evidence from
Malaysian public listed firms. Journal of Economics,
Business and Management, 3(2), 239-243.
[14] Larcker, D. F., Richardson, S. A., & Tuna, A. (2005). How
important is corporate governance?.
[15] Mwangi Mary Wanjiru (2012) the effect of corporate
governance on financial performance of companies
listed at nairobi security exchange
[16] Ntim, C.G., 2009. Internal corporate governance
structures and firm financial performance: evidence
from South African listed firms (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Glasgow).
[17] PuwanenthirenPratheepkanth, SamanthalaHettihewa
and Christopher S. Wright (2016)
[18] Saha, N. K., Moutushi, R. H., &Salauddin, M. (2018).
CorporateGovernance andFirmPerformance:TheRole
of the Board and Audit Committee. Asian Journal of
Finance & Accounting, 10(1), 210-226.
[19] Shahzad, F., Ahmed, N., Fareed, Z., Zulfiqar,B.,&Naeem,
F. (2015). Corporate governance impact on firm
performance: evidence from cement industry of
Pakistan. European researcher. Series A, (1), 37-47.
[20] Shleifer, A and Vishny,R. (1997); A survey of corporate
governance; journal of finance, 52; 737-775.
[21] Simon Ayo Adekunle&Enoghayinagbon Maurice
Aghedo(2014) Corporate Governance and Financial
Performance of Selected Quoted Companies in
Nigeria.European JournalofBusinessand Management
[22] Tomar, S., & Bino, A. (2012). Corporategovernanceand
bank performance: evidence from Jordanian banking
industry. Jordan Journal of Business Administration,
8(2), 353-372.
[23] Velnampy, T., and P. Nimalthasan. "Corporate
governance practices, capital structure and their
impact on firm performance: a study on Sri Lankan
listed manufacturing companies." Research Journal of
Finance and Accounting 4, no. 18 (2013).
[24] Velnampy, T., &Pratheepkanth, P. (2013). Corporate
Governance and Firm Performance:" A Study of
Selected Listed Companies in Sri Lanka".
[25] Vijayakumaran, R. (2015). Capital structure decisions,
agency conflicts and corporate performance: Evidence
from Sri Lankan listed manufacturing firms.
[26] Wu, S. (2002). Dennis KK Fan and Chung-Ming Lau The
Chinese University of Hong Kong. The Management of
Enterprises in the People’s Republic of China, 211.
[27] Zabri, S. M., Ahmad, K., &Wah, K. K. (2016). Corporate
governance practices and firm performance: Evidence
from top 100 public listed companies in Malaysia.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 287-296.
[28] ZhaoyangGuoa&Udaya Kumara KGA (2012) Corporate
Governance and Firm Performance of Listed Firms in
Sri Lanka. The 2012 international (spring) Conference
on Asia Pacific Business Innovation & Technology
Management

Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability Empirical Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability Empirical Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka

Similar to Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability Empirical Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka (20)

More from ijtsrd

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Corporate Governance and Corporate Profitability Empirical Study of Listed Land and Property Companies in Sri Lanka